[Dylan16807]

Use of likeness does not have a negligible marginal cost. Every use matters. So I don't think my argument breaks down the way you're suggesting.

> I don't necessarily think that all preferences are equal, but I also bias towards weighing everyone's preferences as worth respecting, unless there's a compelling reason to assign more or less weight to those preferences. For example, when preferences are legally protected or morally aligned, I tend to weight them more; while preferences that are simply asinine or I consider to be immoral are similarly downweighted. I don't feel like this is a radical viewpoint, though?

When there is a public broadcast, I think the right to watch it should automatically be bundled with the right to take pictures of it. At least as far as the rights of the entity making the broadcast go. So I do find the disconnect somewhat asinine. And when someone is just showing me factual content, I don't particularly care about their preferences as a default, just their burden.

[try_the_bass]

> Use of likeness does not have a negligible marginal cost. Every use matters. So I don't think my argument breaks down the way you're suggesting.

But now you're just making an arbitrary distinction? That seems suspicious.

> When there is a public broadcast, I think the right to watch it should automatically be bundled with the right to take pictures of it.

You might, but there are numerous cases where this is illegal, which means the legal system disagrees with you. You might disagree with the legal system, but that does not give you the right to disregard it.

> And when someone is just showing me factual content, I don't particularly care about their preferences as a default, just their burden.

Your likeness is also "just factual content", so by this logic, no one should care about any of your preferences regarding it. Your only way to resolve this contradiction is apparently to arbitrarily define the things where you think preferences should matter as "not having marginal cost".

The only thing you've made clear with this line of reasoning is that you feel free to disregard anyone's preferences if they're inconvenient to you.

That's pretty anti-social.

[Dylan16807]

> But now you're just making an arbitrary distinction? That seems suspicious.

Maybe? I don't think it's very arbitrary.

> You might, but there are numerous cases where this is illegal, which means the legal system disagrees with you.

Situations like what? Time-shifting is very well established as legal.

> Your likeness is also "just factual content",

No it's not. There are moral rights and privacy rights involved.

> Your only way to resolve this contradiction is apparently to arbitrarily define the things where you think preferences should matter as "not having marginal cost".

I said it does have marginal cost. After you brought up how a server request in this situation pretty much doesn't.

Because these rights are very different from the cost to handle an http request: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights

> The only thing you've made clear with this line of reasoning is that you feel free to disregard anyone's preferences if they're inconvenient to you.

It's hard for me to believe you wrote this description of my argument in good faith. I have never even looked at these cameras, and if someone else's right to their own likeness got in the way of my own projects I would respect that right a lot. My own convenience has absolutely nothing to do with my argument. This is all about principles.